ML20235B896
| ML20235B896 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1979 |
| From: | Duraiswamy S, Savio R NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20234A777 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-40 NUDOCS 8707090239 | |
| Download: ML20235B896 (3) | |
Text
WY D7A March 2, 1979 PROJECT STATUS REPORT WILLIAM H. ZIMMER NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 The William H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 is located in Ohio on the Ohio River approximately 24 miles southeast of Cincinnati and 1/2 mile north of the small town of Moscow, Ohio. The site is approximately 632 acres and is located between the Ohio River and a secondary road which parallels the river.
(See Attachment A).
The application was filed by the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, the Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, and the Dayton Power Light Company.
The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company is authorized to act as the agent for the other two power companies and is primarily responsible for design, construction, and opetation of this station.
The original application was for two units.
Construction of second unit, however, has been cancelled.
The architect-engineer is Sargent &
Lundy, the construction contractor is Kaiser Engineers, and the nuclear steam supply system supplier is the General Electric Company. The nuclear steam supply system is a BWR/5 type utilizing the L X 8 General Electric fuel that is similar to the Hatch, Unit 2.
(See Attachment B). The containment system will be a Mark II type and is the first of this type to be considered by the Committee for a license to operate.
The Mark II containment design and the NRC Staff's acceptance criteria for the design basis pool dynamic loads have been reviewed by the Zimmer Subcommittee and the Fluid Dyna'mics Subcommittee.
A summary of Mark II containment lead plant load evaluation and acceptance criteria and a report issued by Dr. Thomas Eaton, a former ACRS Fellow, are included under this tab in this notebook.
The application for a construction permit was docketed on April 7, 1970 and the construction permit was issued on October 27, 1972.
A copy of the Committee's letter is included as Attachment C.
The applicatico for the operating license was docketed on September 10, 1975.
There will be a hearing on this application.
The construction is estimated to be about 95% complete and the Applicants have scheduled fuel loading for June of 1979.
It is not clear at this point that the date for fuel loading will be met.
s The plant is designed to withstand a SSE of 0.29 and an OBE of 0.1g.
f The bedrock surface at the site is relatively flat and at an approxi-mate elevation of 410 ft. above mean sea level. The Staff has required that existing foundation materials to the 450 f t. elevation be removed and replaced with compacted fill.
The site lies on a 0.5 mile wide alluvial plain on the Ohio River with the approximate elevation of the 70 9 870610 THOMASB7-40 pog l
3
(
g
.2 l
flood plain at the 500 ft. elevation.
Plants structures are to be I
located at an average final plant grade elevation of 520 ft. The compacted fill will be dewatered.
The Applicants have not yet accepted the Staff's requirement for a dewatering of the fill to an elevation of 457 ft.
It would, however, appear that this disagree-ment will be resolved without involving any significant technical problems.
i The NRC Staff has issued acceptance criteria for the Mark II contain-ment design to accommodate pool dynamic loads. The Applicants have i
taken issue with two of these criteria (The treatment of the bubble release on the quencher air clearing loads and the treatment of the LOCA jet submerged drag). The Staff has the matter under review and J
it appears that it will be resolved in the very near future. The i
generic acceptance criteria for the Mark II containment design are considered by the Staff as applying all lead plants.
It is poa -ble, however, that the continued research will make it possible to modify these criteria as to be less conservative. The Staff has required
)
that the Applicants evaluate all loads using the linear sum load combination method.
Nearly all of the structures in the Zimmer plant are acceptable under this criteria.
The Zimer design will utilize valve flow control rather than pump speed flow control (such as was used on the BWR/4 design) to regulate j
the flow of the primary coolant. The procedure used is to start the
{
recirculation pumps on the 100% speed power source to unseat the pump bearings. The suction and block valves are fully opened and the flow control valves are in the minimum position.
When the pumps are near I
full speed, the main power source is tripped and the pumps are allowed to coast down to near 25% speed where the low frequency motor generator set will power the pumps and motors at 25% speed. The flow control valves are then opened to the maximum position at which point t' e n
reactor heatup and pressurization can commence. When the reactor j
pcwer is greater than 30%, the low feedwater flow interlock is cleared
)
and the recirculation pumps get switched to the 100% speed power source.
j The flow control valves are closed to the minimum position before the i
speed change to prevent large increases in reactor core power.
An l
interlock has been installed on each pump to prevent system startup i
I or transfer from 25% to 100% pump speed unless the flow control valve is in the minimum position.
This is to prevent a reactivity insertion
/
due to the sweeping of the voids from the core should the transfer to j
the 100% speed occur with the flow control valve in a maximum position.
i
)
c-j
' gQ -
(
[
j I An article appeared in the Cincinnati Post on February 15, 1979.
which reportea an interview with a Mr. I. T. Yin, an NRC inspector from the Region III Office.
The article dealt with design deficiencies in the pipe hanger supports and QA and QC deficiencies at the Zimer plant. Mr. Vandel and Mr. Yin were at the February 27, 1979 Sub-committee meeting representing the Region III Office and these matters were discussed with them. A copy of the newspaper article and material summarizing the Region III concerns is included as Attachment C.
The Hearing Board has.. allowed intervention petitions on the Zimmer application from the City of Cincinnati, Dr.' David S. Frankhauser, Mrs. M. B. Snell, and the Miami Valley Power Project.
The Subcom-mittee has received no written statements or requests for time for oral statements. No significant differences of opinion among the NRC Staff have been identified.
Richard P. Savio h Sam Duraiswamy amV am u
c r
.d